|
|
Posted by unglued on 07/16/06 13:31
Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <1152986278.376139.303380@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> unglued <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:
>
> > Invid Fan wrote:
>
> > > I thought he was saying that if nobody own a particular film, nobody
> > > will have an interest in keeping a set of original prints or restoring
> > > damaged ones. That's how films get lost.
> >
> > I don't understand that, producing a superior product that can command
> > relatively
> > high profits is always a going proposition on condition that the
> > enhanced version is not ripped off but then we're talking about pirate
> > copies.
> >
> I'm going to use a non-film example here. The BBC did not keep master
> versions of any of their pre-1970's tv series. Due to union and
> copyright rules they could only air an episode twice, after which it
> was sold for international viewing and forgotten. Those syndicated film
> prints of the episodes were often destroyed once they were no longer
> needed: after all, the BBC had more copies, right? By the time anyone
> really noticed over 100 episodes of Doctor Who, plus entire runs of
> other series, no longer existed in any form.
>
> My point being, if no one owns a show there's a good chance the
> original masters won't be preserved. Everyone will assume someone else
> is doing it, so not spend the money to preserve or restore what they
> have.
The BBC did own the shows but they didn't have the foresight and
business acumen
to imagine a future mass-market for budget tv shows. They let the
economists run the business with short term budget-year planning
horisons, just like a lot of the Holywood studios.
>
> --
> Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
> 'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
> -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|